Lumbini
On Trial: The Untold Story
There are compelling reasons for believing
that the present site of Lumbini, the Buddha’s birthplace, is the result of an
astonishing hoax. The details of its discovery in 1896 reveal a tale of deception
and intrigue, which is now told for the first time.
At present, controversy continues to surround
the location of Kapilavastu, the Buddha’s native town, with both
Any attempt to assess the reliability of the
present identifications for Lumbini and Kapilavastu should begin by taking a
close look at the circumstances surrounding their discovery. Chief among the
participants in those events - and in my view central to them all - was the
extraordinary figure of Dr Alois Anton Fuhrer, a German archaeologist employed
by the (British) Government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh between
1885-98, and co-discoverer of the present Lumbini site.
Modern Indologists, whilst aware of Fuhrer’s
unsavoury reputation, have nevertheless neglected to conduct any close scrutiny
of his activities, fondly believing that these have long since been
satisfactorily catalogued and assessed, and that Fuhrer may be safely consigned
to oblivion in consequence. Unfortunately, this is far from being the case.
Fuhrer, in fact, drove a coach and horses through critical areas of Indological
research, and his deceptions continue to have far-reaching consequences for Indian
history to this day. He was a prolific plagiarist and forger (who worked,
alarmingly, on the first two volumes of the Epigraphia Indica) 1 and
I have good reason to believe that his deceptions were sometimes condoned, even
exploited, by the Government of the day, for imperial reasons of their own. I
believe that these fraudulent activities included both the Piprahwa discoveries
and those of the Nepalese Tarai, and that these are fair game, in consequence,
for any assessment which keeps Dr Fuhrer very firmly in mind. Following
Fuhrer’s dismissal in 1898, the Secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor of the
North-Western Provinces remarked, in a letter to central Government, that ‘His
Honor fears it must be admitted that no statement made by Dr Fuhrer on
archaeological subjects, at all events, can be accepted until independently
verified’.2 . Unfortunately this
verification was by no means as rigorous as one might perhaps have wished, as
we shall shortly see.
Fuhrer was appointed to the position of
Curator at the
Fuhrer’s first venture into fraudulent
activity appears to have occurred in 1892, when he copied entire passages from
Buhler’s articles on Brahmi inscriptions at Sanchi and Mathura into the report
of his own excavations at the site of Ramnagar, in the Bareilly district. 4 . Astonishingly, this wholesale
and extensive plagiarism appears to have passed completely unnoticed during
this period (including, apparently, by Buhler himself, with whom Fuhrer was
then in correspondence). He also fraudulently incised Brahmi inscriptions on to
stone exhibits in the
In 1893, Major Jaskaran Singh, a wealthy
landowner from Balrampur, reported the discovery of an inscribed Asokan pillar
at Bairat, a deserted spot near Nepalganj, on the Indo-Nepalese border. 6 . Two years later Fuhrer ‘left
for Balrampur...to look up the Asoka pillar’ which Singh had reported, but ‘it
turned out that the information furnished by Major Jaskaran Singh was
unfortunately misleading as to the exact position of this pillar’, and ‘after
experiencing many difficulties’, Fuhrer found a pillar near the village of Nigliva,
about 100 miles east of Singh’s originally-stated location. 7 . An Asokan inscription was
reportedly discovered by Fuhrer on a broken piece of this pillar, the main
shaft of which lay close by. Though the local villagers supposedly informed him
that ‘other inscriptions were hidden beneath the soil’ in which this stump was
partly buried, Fuhrer was refused permission to excavate it, and he was thus
‘compelled to content myself with taking impressions and paper moulds of the lines
visible above ground’. Permission to excavate was granted two months later, but
as this was ‘without any results whatsoever’, it is evident that the
inscription was that of ‘the lines visible above ground’ on Fuhrer's arrival.
8 . This is most important, as we
shall shortly see.
The inscription referred to Asoka’s
enlargement of the stupa of the ‘previous Buddha’, Konagamana, which according
to Fuhrer was situated nearby, ‘amidst vast brick ruins stretching far away in
the direction of the southern gate of Kapilavastu’. Fuhrer gave extensive
details of this ancient and impressive structure, declaring that it was
‘undoubtedly one of the oldest Buddhist monuments in
All this was pure moonshine however, as later surveys soon revealed. Fuhrer’s Konagamana stupa didn’t exist, and its elaborate details (including those ‘ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures’) were shown to have been lifted directly from Alexander Cunningham’s book ‘Bhilsa Topes’ 10 . The stupa was presumably invented by Fuhrer as an additional support for the Asokan inscription at the site; but why should he consider this deception necessary if the inscription itself were genuine - as is still supposed - one is then prompted to ask? Further grave doubts, moreover, arise from Fuhrer’s statement that this inscription was ‘visible above ground’ on his arrival. For in a later (1899) report by Drs. Hoey and Waddell, it emerged that in 1893 - i.e. two years prior to Fuhrer’s visit - Hoey had commissioned the local Governor, Khadga Shamsher, to take rubbings of any inscriptions on pillars in the area, ‘but these were not of Asoka lettering’. This later report also showed that Fuhrer was lying when he claimed that his excavations had revealed that the inscribed portion of this pillar was ‘resting on a masonry foundation’, the precise measurements of which he also gave ; this didn’t exist either, the broken piece being merely stuck into the ground at the site. 11
Finally, the Divyavadana describes how
Asoka was conducted to Lumbini for the first time by his spiritual preceptor,
Upagupta, who pointed out to the king the spot where the Buddha was born.
Whilst the inscription on the Lumbini pillar states that this visit occurred
when Asoka had been anointed twenty years, the inscription at nearby Nigliva
states that Asoka ‘increased for the second time the stupa of Buddha
Konagamana’ when he had been anointed fourteen years. 12 . This is absurd. Why would
Asoka decide to enlarge the Konagamana stupa - and for the second time - six
years before he had even set foot in the Lumbini area?
The following year (1896) found Fuhrer back in
The site was – and indeed, still is -
supposedly called ‘Rummindei’, this being considered to be a later variant of
the name ‘Lumbini’. 15 .
But as E. J. Thomas observed:
‘According to Fuhrer, “this deserted site is still locally called Rummindei” (Monograph, p. 28). This statement was generally accepted before Fuhrer’s imaginativeness was discovered, and is still incautiously repeated. Yet he admitted that it was not the name used by the present Nepalese officials. “It is a curious fact (he says) that the true meaning of this ancient Buddhistic name has long been forgotten, as the present Nepalese officials believe the word to signify the sthan of Rupa-devi”. V. A. Smith said “the name Rummindei, of which a variant form Rupadei (sic) is known to the hill-men, is that of the shrine near the top of the mound of ruins”. This gives no further evidence for Fuhrer’s assertion, and it appears that neither the Nepalese officials nor the hill-men called it Rummindei’. 16
The Indian Survey map of 1915 shows the spot
as ‘Roman-devi’; it should be noted that another ‘Roman-dei’ exists about 30
miles WSW of the Nepalese site, near the Indian town of Chandapar. 17 . Today, the site is situated in
the ‘Rupandehi District’ of
The Lumbini Pillar Inscription.
Whatever the event, in December 1896 Fuhrer
met up at this Nepalese ‘Rummindei’ with the local Governor, Khadga Shamsher
(‘a man with intrigue in his bones’, 18 who having assassinated
one Prime Minister of Nepal and plotted against two others, was eventually
compelled to flee to British India and sanctuary). 19 . The subsequent excavations
around the pillar reportedly disclosed an Asokan inscription about one metre
below ground, and level with the top of a surrounding brick enclosure.
The credit for the discovery of this
inscription later prompted an official enquiry, since Fuhrer had supposedly
left the site - quite inexplicably - immediately before any further excavations
had begun, leaving the Governor and his ‘sappers’ to do the digging. In his
official letter on the matter, Fuhrer stated that he had advised the Governor
‘that an inscription would be found if a search was made below the surface of
the mound’ on which the pillar was situated. 20 . Since, as we shall shortly
see, there was no previous historical reference to such an inscription, one
wonders at Fuhrer’s remarkable prescience on this occasion. However, since this
inscription forms the real basis for the present identification of this site
with Lumbini, I propose to deal with it in further detail before passing on to
evidences afforded by other features at this location.
The appearance of this inscription in 1896
marked its first recorded appearance in history. The Chinese pilgrims, Fa-hsien
and Yuan-chuang, make no mention of it in their accounts of the Lumbini site
(though Yuan-chuang does mention Asokan inscriptions on pillars at the nearby
towns of Konagamana and Krakuchandra Buddhas) and concerning Kapilavastu and
its associated sites (such as Lumbini) Thomas Watters observed:
‘We have no records of any other pilgrims visiting this place, or of any great Buddhists residing at it, or of any human life, except that mentioned by the two pilgrims, between the Buddha’s time and the present. No doubt pilgrims went to the place and worshipped and wrote their names on topes or columns, but they did not tell of their pilgrimages to the sacred sites nor did others write their stories for them.’ 21
In Watters’ book ‘On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in
‘Yuan-chuang, as we have seen, mentions a stone pillar, but he does not say anything about an inscription on it. The Fang-chih, however, tells us that the pillar recorded the circumstances of Buddha's birth’. 22
The Fang-chih (which is merely a shortened version of Yuan-chuang’s account) does nothing of the sort, since it also refers to a stone pillar only, and no inscription is mentioned in this text either. 23 . Watters was referred to by V. A. Smith as ‘one of the most brilliant ornaments’ of Chinese Buddhist scholarship, and it is quite inconceivable that he would have made this critical and extraordinary error. There are frequent references to the Fang-chih throughout the rest of Watters’ book, and it is evident that he was perfectly familiar with its contents. Following Smith’s earlier assertion that the Lumbini inscription ‘set at rest all doubts as to the exact site of the traditional birthplace of Gautama Buddha’, 24 Watters had retorted that ‘it would be more correct to say that the inscription, if genuine, tells us what was the spot indicated to Asoka as the birthplace of the Buddha’. 25 . Note that ‘if genuine’; this shows that Watters not only had his doubts about this inscription, but that he was prepared to voice those doubts in public. Indeed, according to Smith, ‘Mr Watters writes in a very sceptical spirit, and apparently feels doubts as to the reality of the Sakya principality in the Tarai’. 26 . From all this, it is clear that this Fang-chih ‘mistake’ (which appears to show Watters giving textual support for this inscription) is totally at variance with his ‘very sceptical spirit’ concerning these supposed Tarai discoveries: and I shall therefore conclude that this was a posthumous interpolation into Watters’ work by its editors, Rhys Davids, Bushell, and Smith (Watters’ original manuscript can no longer be found, I am informed). If this conclusion is correct, then the reasons behind this appalling deception can only be guessed at, I need hardly add. 27 .
Fuhrer was later found to have fraudulently laid
claim to the discovery of about twenty relic-caskets at sites close to Lumbini,
which allegedly bore Asokan, and even pre-Asokan inscriptions. 28 . One of these caskets
supposedly contained a tooth-relic of the Buddha, which Fuhrer illicitly
exchanged for various expensive gifts with a Burmese monk, U Ma (the
correspondence between these two makes for lamentable reading, with Fuhrer
exploiting U Ma’s gullibility pretty unmercifully). 29 . Following an official enquiry
into the matter, this tooth-relic was found to be ‘apparently that of a horse’:
Fuhrer had explained its large size to an indignant U Ma by pointing out that
according to ‘your sacred writings’ the Buddha was nearly thirty feet in height!
According to Fuhrer, this ‘Buddhadanta’ had been found by a villager inside a ruined brick stupa near Tilaurakot, and was ‘enshrined in a bronze casket, bearing the following inscription in Maurya characters: “This sacred tooth-relic of Lord Buddha (is) the gift of Upagupta”’ (the mentor of Asoka). 30 . Having obligingly parted with the relic, the villager had refused to part with the inscribed casket itself ‘which is still in his possession’. Fuhrer reported finding this Asokan item (denounced as spurious by the enquiry) during his Nepalese visit of December 1896, the selfsame visit which saw his involvement with the discovery of the Asokan inscription at Lumbini. Even more ominously, Fuhrer’s Progress Report on the Lumbini discovery finds him excitedly pointing out that the Lumbini inscription includes words which were supposedly spoken by Upagupta whilst showing Asoka the Buddha’s birth-spot (at least, according to the Divyavadana) : ‘It would almost appear as if Asoka had engraved on this pillar the identical words which Upagupta uttered at this place’, Fuhrer tells us, all wide-eyed. 31 . However, what with a phoney Upagupta quote on the casket, an Upagupta quote on the pillar, and Fuhrer’s keen taste for forging Brahmi inscriptions, one wonders whether Fuhrer himself didn’t have Upagupta fatefully on the brain around this particular period (and here, we may recall that he had fraudulently incised Brahmi inscriptions on to stone four years earlier: see ‘Fuhrer's Early Years’). And indeed, this pillar inscription ‘appeared almost as if freshly cut’ when Rhys Davids examined it in 1900, 32 a view echoed by Professors N. Dutt and K. D. Bajpai, who observed that ‘it appears as if the inscription has been very recently incised’ when they examined it fifty years later. 33 . W. C. Peppe’s original article on the Piprahwa events (which reveals that his 1898 JRAS article was considerably polished and reworked, presumably by the ubiquitous V. A. Smith) was later privately published at Calcutta (n. d.). In this version, Peppe', writing of the ‘Lumbani’ pillar, mentions that ‘the rain falling on this pillar must have trickled over these letters and it is marvellous how well they are preserved; they stand out boldly as if they had been cut today and show no signs of the effects of climate; not a portion of the inscription is even stained’. Inscriptions on other Asokan pillars located at sites associated with the Buddha’s life and ministry - Sarnath and Kosambi, for example - contain no references to their Buddhist associations, as this pillar so conspicuously (and twice) does; and no other inscription makes reference to any erection of a particular pillar by Asoka (as this one does) either. And with the exceptions of Sarnath and Sanchi (where only broken bases of pillars have been found) all other inscribed Asokan pillars display six or seven lengthy inscriptions on each column, whereas this pillar and the Nigliva pillar display only single brief inscriptions of 4 -5 lines, and as J. F. Fleet has pointedly observed they are not really edicts at all. 34.
There is an additional mystery here. As noted above,
Fuhrer had supposedly left the site just before the inscription was unearthed.
Yet he had travelled up from
Fuhrer twice refers to a ‘pilgrim's mark’ on
the upper part of this pillar, and whilst giving no details of its language,
script, or content, he nevertheless dates it at around 700 AD. He states that
since this item was visible above ground whilst the Asokan inscription lay
hidden beneath the soil, this somehow explains Yuan-chuang’s failure to notice
the latter during his visit to Lumbini around 635 AD. 36 . However, since this ‘pilgrim's
mark’ does not, in fact, exist anyway, this ‘explanation’ can hardly be said to
apply; and again one wonders - as with the phoney Nigliva stupa – whether
Fuhrer’s invention of this item wasn’t simply another clumsy attempt to add
credence to the Asokan inscription at this site also. Why else would Fuhrer
invent it?
A further problem would appear to arise with
the occurrence of the term ‘Sakyamuni’ in this inscription. I can find no other
instance of this term, in this form, in any other Brahmi inscription,
whether Asokan or otherwise; these show ‘saka muni’, the form ‘Sakyamuni’ being
found in much later (Kushan) Kharosthi inscriptions only. 37 . Whilst it occurs in the Pali
scriptures, these were written down much later, and as J. F. Fleet observed:
‘The inscriptions of India are the only sure grounds of historical results in every line of research connected with its ancient past; they regulate everything that we can learn from coins, architecture, art, literature, tradition, or any other source.’ 38
A similar caution has been expressed by
Richard Salomon:
‘...there can be no question that in Buddhological studies as a whole the testimony of the inscriptions has not generally been given the weight it merits, and that the entire field of the history of Buddhism, which has traditionally been dominated by a strongly text-oriented approach, must be re-examined in its light.’ 39
The
Location of the Lumbini Pillar
The pillar at the present Lumbini site is in
the ‘wrong’ place; that is, it is in a very different position, relative to the
so-called ‘Sacred Pool’, from that mentioned by Yuan-chuang (and the pillar
rests upon a support-stone, it should be noted here). 40 . According to this pilgrim, a
decayed ‘Asoka-flower’ tree lay twenty-five paces to
the north of the pool at Lumbini, marking the birth-spot of the Buddha. To the
east of this lay an Asokan stupa, marking the spot where ‘two dragons’ bathed
the newly-born prince; to the east of this were two more stupas, close to two
springs; to the south of these was another stupa; close to this were four more
stupas; and close to these was the stone pillar itself, broken in half and
lying near to a little ‘river of oil’. A little elementary geometry will
disclose that the pillar thus lay - apparently at some distance - to either the
east or to the south-east of the pool. At the present site, however, the pillar
(on its support-stone, remember) stands a mere 75 metres or so to the north-north-west
of the pool, a position diametrically opposed to that given by Yuan-chuang in
his carefully detailed account.
In 1994, I photographed an official notice at
the present Lumbini site (see Fig. 1 )
the text of which ran as follows:
‘The famous
Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang says :- “Lumbini is on the
bank of the River Telar where an Asokan pillar (with a split in the centre),
the
Yuan-chuang, alas, makes no such statement,
and like Fa-Hsien, his account makes no mention whatsoever of any ‘
Similarly, the sandstone image in this
‘temple’, supposedly of Mayadevi giving birth to the Buddha, appears equally
dubious on a closer examination of its origins. This bas-relief, in
which the figures are so defaced as to be virtually unrecognizable (see Fig. 5 ) evidently
formed part of the cache of broken statuary which Mukherji found during his
visit to the site in 1899. These items included various figures of Brahmanical
deities such as Varahi, Durga, Parvati and the like, 43 and
it is noted that the supposed image of Mayadevi bears a striking resemblance to
figures of yakshis and devatas also (see Figs. 2-4 ).
It is by no means certain that the all-important top section of this figure
(with its raised arm holding a tree-branch) was originally associated with the
torso, either. When Hoey first saw it in 1897 the figure was headless, the
present top piece having been discovered by Mukherji in 1899, lying among the
broken pieces of statuary mentioned above. During a later visit, Landon noted
that among various examples of Mukherji's careless assembly of these pieces was
one displaying a head of Ganesh wrongly placed on to ‘the headless body of a
female deity’ 44 (see Fig. 6 ).
Whatever the event, it seems evident that all of these items - the ‘Mayadevi’
figure included - were associated with the earlier structure found by Mukherji,
and that they are therefore mediaeval and Brahmanical in consequence.
In January 1898, Mr W. C. Peppe', landholder
of the Birdpur Estate in north-eastern Basti District, U. P., announced the
discovery of soapstone relic-caskets and jewellery inside a stupa near
Piprahwa, a small village on this estate. An inscription on one of these caskets
appeared to indicate that bone relics, supposedly found with these items, were
those of the Buddha himself. Since this inscription also referred to the
Buddha’s Sakyan kinsmen, these relics were thus generally considered to be
those which were accorded to the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, following the Buddha’s
cremation.
The following year (1899) these bone relics
were ceremonially presented by the Government of
·
Peppe' had been in contact with Fuhrer just
before his announcement of the Piprahwa discovery (Fuhrer was then excavating
nearby, at the Nepalese site of Sagarwa). 46 . Immediately following Peppe's
announcement, it was discovered that Fuhrer had been conducting a steady trade
in bogus relics of the Buddha with a Burmese monk, U Ma. Among these items –and a year before the
alleged Piprahwa finds - Fuhrer had sent U Ma a soapstone relic-casket
containing fraudulent Buddha-relics of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, together with
bogus Asokan inscriptions, these deceptions thus duplicating, at an earlier
date, every important detail of Peppe’s supposedly unique Piprahwa finds.
47 . Fuhrer was also found to have
falsely laid claim to the discovery of seventeen inscribed ‘pre-Asokan’ caskets
at Sagarwa, his report even listing the names of seventeen ‘Sakya heroes’ which
were allegedly inscribed upon these caskets. 48 . The inscribed Piprahwa casket
was also considered to be both Sakyan and pre-Asokan at this time - though its
characters have since been shown to be typically Asokan - and no other
pre-Asokan Sakyan caskets have been discovered either before or since this
date.
·
the bone
relics themselves, purportedly 2500 years old, ‘might have been picked up a few
days ago’ according to Peppe', 49 whilst a
molar tooth found among these items (and retained by Peppe') has
recently been found to be that of a pig.
Though this latter item was unable to be carbon-dated, a bone from a bird’s
foot (also retained by Peppe) has been carbon-dated to the 15th
century AD (on this point, see the references to Sagarwa in refs. 42 and 50).
·
despite their dark, heavily-mottled
appearance in 1898, the Piprahwa relic caskets - apart from the inscribed item
– have since become bleached to a uniform dull white (soapstone colours do not
fade) and are evidently plaster copies of caskets found by Cunningham at Sanchi
(see Figs. 7-12 ). A photograph of the ‘rear’ of the
inscribed casket, taken in situ at Piprahwa in 1898 (and never published
thereafter) discloses that a large sherd was missing from the base of the
vessel at this time (see Fig.
8 ). Having examined
this casket in 1994, I discovered that a piece had since been inserted into
this broken base (though the join had obviously been ‘nibbled’ in a rather
clumsy attempt to get the inset piece to fit). The photograph also reveals a
curious feature on the upper aspect of the casket; this, I discovered, was a
piece of sealing-wax (since transferred to the inside) which had been applied
to prevent a large crack from running further. From all this, it is evident
that this casket had been badly damaged from the start, a fact unmentioned in
any report. But is it likely, one is prompted to ask, that this damaged
casket, supposedly containing the Buddha’s relics, would have been reverently
deposited inside the stupa anyway? Or is this the broken casket, ‘similar in
shape to those found below’, which was reportedly found at the summit of the
stupa, and which promptly vanished without trace thereafter? This broken (summit) casket was the
earliest of the alleged Piprahwa finds : so did Peppe
take it to Fuhrer, and did Fuhrer then forge the inscription on it? Is the Piprahwa inscription, in fact,
merely another Fuhrer forgery? Epigraphists
with whom I have raised this question have argued that Fuhrer did not have the
necessary expertise for such a deception; but in his position as Assistant
Editor on the Epigraphia Indica, Fuhrer would have been at the very cutting
edge of palaeographical studies at this time, quite apart from his close
association with the great epigraphist, Georg Buhler. Furthermore, H. R. Dani
has drawn attention to both the carelessness and crudity of this inscription’s
execution, and there are distinct peculiarities in some of the characters also.
50 .
·
on his return
to the
·
the
declassified ‘Secret’ political files of the period reveal the disquiet felt by
the Government of
If this 1898 find is spurious, then it is
evident that any later claims for this site may be safely dismissed in
consequence. In 1972 an Indian
archaeologist, K. M. Srivastava, made the startling claim to have discovered
yet further relics of the Buddha in a ‘primary mud stupa’ below the
Peppe' one. He then stated that since
the Peppe bone relics could not be safely determined to be those of the Buddha
(due to the ‘indiscriminate destruction’ caused by Peppe’s excavation) the
inscribed casket of 1898 somehow ‘pointed’ to those relics allegedly found
lower down, and that these were the real relics
of the Buddha, as mentioned by the casket’s inscription. This somewhat bizarre
notion thus rests upon the notion that the 1898 casket is genuine, but since we
have already noted that Fuhrer had earlier fraudulently duplicated Peppe’s
find, then this later claim becomes equally unreliable in consequence. I also
note that Srivastava makes no mention, in any of his various books or articles
on his alleged finds, of the 1898 bequest to
The
Kapilavastu of the Chinese Pilgrims
It is thus with a certain sense of relief that
one finally turns to the testimonies of the two Chinese pilgrims, Fa-Hsien and
Yuan-Chuang, who are the only really reliable guides that we have to the
whereabouts of the Kapilavastu and Lumbini locations. After all, not only did these pilgrims
actually visit these sites (in the 5th and 7th centuries AD) but their
accounts reveal precisely how they got there also. These accounts remain the
Rosetta Stone, as it were, on the whereabouts of ancient Indian Buddhist sites,
and without them much of Indian history would have remained a closed book, as
Cunningham and others have gratefully acknowledged.
Now the pilgrims’ accounts are in perfect
agreement as to the location of Kapilavastu (and since, I shall repeat, they
both actually went there, then this
surely renders any further argument superfluous on the matter). From the city of
Before proceeding further, it will be
necessary to point out that of the original Kapilavastu site,
most archaeological traces will have long since disappeared anyway. As
Professor Herbert Härtel has pointed out:
‘The hope to recover the original structures and ruins of a town or habitation of the time of the Buddha, let us say Kapilavastu, is almost zero’. 57
The problem being that the earliest burnt
brick buildings found in India date to the second century BCE (with the
exception of the Harappan sites, which need not concern us here) and any
earlier remains would have long since returned to clay in consequence. This
being so, one is compelled to rely upon whatever local traditions may tell us,
and this in an area where following the extinction of Buddhism, and successive
Islamic and Rajput depredations, all threads of any such traditions disappeared
as the sites were abandoned to the jungle. Astonishingly, however, one such
tradition appears to have survived; and I propose to examine this in detail,
since it would appear to hold what may prove to be the key to the Kapilavastu
problem at last.
Will
the Real Kapilavastu Please Stand Up?
At the correct distance from Sravasti
(about 84 miles), and in the right direction also (south-east) lies the
pilgrimage site of Maghar, about sixteen miles west of Gorakhpur. At present
this site is visited by Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim pilgrims, since it is said to
mark the final resting-place of the great poet/saint Kabir, who died at this
spot in 1518 AD or thereabouts. Kabir’s sayings disclose that he had not only
received spiritual enlightenment at Maghar, but that he had also elected to die
there, in deliberate defiance of contemporary Brahmin teachings. 58 . These declared that Maghar was
‘accursed’, and held that whilst dying in Varanasi assured rebirth in heaven,
death at ‘barren’ Maghar meant rebirth in hell, or as an ass, etc. Such dire
fulminations from the Varanasi Brahmins against the Maghar site - a full 200
kms. distant - constitute a sure indication that
Maghar represented an important rival religious site which they found it
necessary to discredit. But why should anyone have wished to die at Maghar
anyway? The answer is not far to seek. According to Buddhist tradition, ‘the
Buddha was, after his parinirvana, in some sense actually present at the
places where he is known to have formerly been’, and ‘a devout death that
occurred within the range of this presence assured for the individuals involved
- and these were both monks and laymen - rebirth in heaven’. 59 . Since, as we shall now see,
there is compelling evidence to show that Maghar was once the site of Kapilavastu
itself, then the reason for people electing to die there then becomes
abundantly clear, as, indeed, does Brahmin hostility towards this place.
For A. C. L. Carlleyle, who did archaeological
tours of this area in the 1870s, tells us not only that the Maghar site is
‘very ancient’, but that it was ‘reputed to have been the seat of Buddhist
hierarchs for some time after Kapilavastu was destroyed’. 60 .
Kapilavastu was destroyed during the Buddha’s lifetime, by the king of Sravasti;
yet despite this catastrophe, when the Chinese pilgrims visited the Kapilavastu
site a thousand years later, they still found Buddhist monks in residence there
(and given the site’s importance, one might safely assume that these would have
included ‘Buddhist hierarchs’). 61 .
One also notes ‘the prominent association of this place (Maghar) with Buddhism’
62 (including Buddhism in its later,
so-called ‘concealed’ forms, such as Nathism, Tantricism, etc) together with
the curious tradition that with the arrival of Kabir, a dried-up local stream
began to flow once more. This is more likely to refer to the reawakening, at
Maghar, of the anti-Brahmanical, anti-caste tradition of Buddhism by the similar
teachings of Kabir, one feels, than to any sudden and supernatural antics of
the local River Ami. And just who, one wonders, was the protective ‘Lord’ of
the (Buddhist) Tharus - the earliest
recorded inhabitants of Maghar - whose place of worship (beneath a tree) was
called the ‘Thakur-dih’, or high place of the Lord, but upon whose name
‘tradition is silent’? 63 .
According to D.C. Sen (‘History of Bengali Language and Literature’) the
worshippers of ‘Thakur’ were a Buddhist sect, and the word was applied to the
image of the Buddha. 64. On
visiting the ‘Thakur-dih’ site in 2005, I was twice informed by local sources
that Chinese travellers had visited the place long ago, and that they had
stayed in the area for a while. I also noted the presence of ancient bricks.
Whatever the event, it is evident that Maghar
was formerly a major Buddhist site, and one which was reputedly occupied
by important Buddhist monks after Kapilavastu had been destroyed. We have
direct historical evidence, from Kabir, that people were still electing to die
at this place following the demise of Indian Buddhism, and whilst the Varanasi
Brahmins declared that dying at Maghar meant rebirth in hell, Buddhists
believed that to die in a place associated with the Buddha’s historical
presence meant rebirth in heaven. Local tradition states that Maghar was
visited by Chinese travellers long ago, and its position accords precisely with
that which was given by both of the Chinese pilgrims for the location of
Kapilavastu itself. So what else could this place be, if not the actual site
of Kapilavastu itself?
From the palace-city of Kapilavastu,
Yuan-chuang travelled to the Arrow Well. He states that this lay 32 li (between
5-6 miles) to the southeast of the city, a bearing which accords with that
which is given by Fa-hsien. From here, Yuan-chuang travelled ‘80 or 90 li
north-east’ to the Lumbini Garden - about 15 miles - though he gives no direct distance between Kapilavastu and
Lumbini. Fa-hsien, however, states that he went directly from Kapilavastu ‘50
li east’ to Lumbini (about nine miles), but this distance is impossible to
reconcile with Yuan-chuang's triangulation. If Yuan-chuang's bearings are
correct - and they are usually more precise than those of Fa-hsien - then
Lumbini must have been just a few miles further on.
According to the Buddhist scriptures, the
Rohini River constituted the border between the neighbouring Sakyan clans of
Kapilavastu and the Koliyans, and the Lumbini pleasure-park was used by both
clans for their mutual
recreation. From this it would appear that they thus regarded Lumbini as a
territorially ‘neutral’ site, which presumably, therefore, lay on or close to
this river border. 65 .
‘About one and-a-half miles to the north-west of Gorakhpur, close to the junction of the Rohini with the Rapti, is a large and high mound, the ruins of the ancient Domangarh, said to have been founded by, and to have received the name from, a ruling tribe called Dom-kattar. The bricks which compose the interior or oldest portion of the ruins of Domangarh are very large and thick, and of a square shape. During the construction of the Bengal and North-West Railway, in 1884, a relic-casket was discovered near this khera containing an amulet of thin plate gold, representing Yasodhara and Rahula, the wife and son of prince Siddhartha, as well as the ornaments of a child. The relics are deposited in Lucknow Provincial Museum.’ 66
Since this deposit obviously predates the
mediaeval fort at this khera (mound) it is evident that Domangarh
(nowadays Domingarh) was formerly an ancient Buddhist site, and the interment
of a relic-casket there shows that it was a place of Buddhist sanctity also
(there are stupa remains still present at the site). The representations on the
amulet are of interest, whilst the large size and square shape of the oldest
bricks strongly suggest that they are Mauryan, and may therefore be part of the
Asokan stupa mentioned by Yuan-chuang at Lumbini (on this point, see
ref.70). Kushan terracottas (1st -
3rd centuries AD) and Northern Black Polished Ware (500-100 BCE)
have also been discovered at the site, these artefacts being housed in the
Purvayatan Museum at Gorakhpur University. 67. These latter finds thus push the dating of this site’s
occupation back to a very ancient period indeed, the NBP Ware finds being
possibly contemporaneous with the Buddha himself.
Domingarh lies about 14 miles east of Maghar, bearings which accord acceptably with those travelled by Yuan-chuang between Kapilavastu and Lumbini. Its position also accords precisely with the bearing – about 35 miles east - to the pilgrims’ next place of visit, which was that of the Rama Stupa (which I take to be the Ramabhar Stupa, for reasons given below) and it is, indeed, directly en route from Maghar to this stupa. The site lies on the Rohini river - there are no other ancient sites along its banks - and since it formerly became an island during the rains, it would thus have been accepted as a ‘neutral’ recreational place by the two Sakyan clans in consequence. It is still a pleasant place to visit, being on a slightly elevated stretch of ground with fresh air and good views, and local Europeans even built a sanatorium - a place of healing - upon it, and would also repair to it for purposes of recreation. Close to it, curiously, is a village called Koliya, and the great mediaeval saint, Gorakhnath (whom many regard as a crypto-Buddhist) chose a nearby site for his ashram. During a recent visit to the site, a friend was informed by locals that Domingarh was named after a queen : this may link with Yuan-chuang’s version of ‘Lumbini’ as ‘La-fa-ni’ (‘beautiful woman’) whilst other accounts state that Lumbini was named after a Koliyan queen. 68.
Both pilgrims report that having left the Lumbini Garden, they travelled east 200 li / 5 yojanas (about 35 miles) to ‘Lan-mo’ (Rama) where they found an Asokan stupa, with its attendant vihara, situated beside a lake. Earlier traditions regarding the Rama stupa are mentioned by both pilgrims in considerable detail. One of these traditions declared that it was the only stupa containing original relics of the Buddha which had remained unrifled by Asoka, whilst another tradition held that wild elephants had repeatedly paid homage at the stupa with gifts of flowers. 69
Taking Domingarh as Lumbini, we find the Kasia
site about 35 miles due east. By far the oldest structure at
this site - the bricks are deemed to be Asokan 70 -
is that of the Ramabhar Stupa, which, like the Rama stupa, is situated beside a
lake. 71.
Whilst this name – ‘Ramabhar’ – has always been a puzzle to scholars, I take it
to signify the stupa of Rama and its
attendant vihara 72
(since ‘bhar/bihar’ = ‘vihara’). 73. At this site, a life-size statue
of a seated Buddha (the so-called ‘Matha-Kuar’) once bore an inscription - now
abraded - which began with the words ‘Rama rupa’ (a rupa being an image
of the Buddha). 74.
In excavations of 1904-5 a plaque was discovered, also bearing a seated Buddha,
showing a row of elephants carrying flowers, precisely as depicted in
the tradition mentioned by the pilgrims for the Rama stupa. 75. Very few of the kind of votive
offerings which were found at the Ramabhar stupa were found elsewhere at the
Kasia remains, a fact which attests to the stupa’s position as the central
sacred feature at this site. 76. Since, as previously mentioned, the Rama stupa’s
Buddha-relic was left untouched by Asoka, this would signify the Buddha's
‘parinirvanic presence’ at Kasia, 77 thus explaining the ‘parinirvana’
statue, the ‘parinirvana’ copperplate, and the sealings of the ‘monastery of
the Mahaparinirvana’, all of which were found at this location. At present,
Kasia is identified with the site of Kusinara, where the Buddha died; but if
this identification is correct, and we backtrack from Kasia using the pilgrims’
accounts, we shall then find Kapilavastu situated somewhere northwest of
Allahabad, and Sravasti located northwest of Lucknow. Nobody, I trust, would
seriously attempt to support such proposals.
From the Rama Stupa, both pilgrims travelled
100 li / 3 yojanas (about 21 miles) east to the spot where Siddhartha sent back
his charioteer, Khanna, following the flight from the palace. The scriptures
state that the prince left by the eastern gate of Kapilavastu at midnight, and
having finally crossed the Anoma River at daybreak, he thus found safety within
the neighbouring kingdom of the Mallas. Having instructed Khanna to return to
Kapilavastu, the prince then cut his hair, changed his royal robes for those of
an ascetic, and spent the following week at a nearby mango-grove before heading
south.
Both of the Chinese pilgrims appear to have
followed the prince’s escape route from Kapilavastu, and their accounts reveal
that not only had Siddhartha travelled directly eastwards to reach this place of renunciation, but that in doing so he had
left both his father’s domain, and also – rather daringly - crossed Koliya, the
domain of his in-laws. Since both of these Sakyan territories were then part of
Kosala (and were thus, in turn, subject to the rule of the king of Sravasti) it
would appear that the young prince had resolved to leave Kosala entirely, and
to flee to a place from which he could not be compelled to return. Authorities are agreed that the eastern
border of Kosala was then the Great Gandak river. From the Rama Stupa the Chinese pilgrims
travelled 3 yojanas / 100 li (21 miles) eastwards to this place of
renunciation, and since this distance and direction equate precisely with those
from the Ramabhar Stupa to the Great Gandak, it seems evident enough that this
great river border was indeed the Anoma River of the scriptures.
Kusinara
From this place, both pilgrims travelled 180
li / 4 yojanas southeast to the Ashes Stupa of the Moriyas of Pipphalivana, and
from there, having travelled through a ‘great forest’ (Yuan-chuang) they
arrived at the site of Kusinara, where the Buddha died. Now whilst Fa-hsien
gives ‘12 yojanas east’ (about 84 miles) from the Ashes Stupa to the Kusinara
site, Yuan-chuang, contrary to his usual custom, gives no distance, but
corrects Fa-hsien’s direction to ‘northeast’. This overall distance/direction
is confirmed by the ‘Fang-chih’ moreover, which gives 500 li northeast - also
about 84 miles - for this journey. 78. These bearings take us straight
to the ancient Champaran area of north-western
The Champaran gazetteer, whilst referring to
what I take to be the ‘great forest’ crossed by Yuan-chuang, also mentions
Champaran’s glorious Vedic past:
‘Legendary
history, local tradition, the names of places and archaeological remains, all
point to a prehistoric past. Local tradition asserts that in the early ages
Champaran was a dense primeval forest, in whose solitude Brahman hermits
studied the aranyakas, which, as their name implies, were to be read in
silvan retreats; and the name Champaran itself is said to be derived from the
fact that the district was formerly one vast forest ( aranya ) of Champa
(magnolia) trees.... it was a place of retreat for Hindu ascetics, where,
removed from worldly ambitions, they could contemplate the Eternal Presence in
the silence of a vast untrodden forest. Various parts of the district are
connected by ancient tradition with many of the great Hindu rishis ...
such as Valmiki, in whose hermitage Sita, the banished spouse of Rama, is said to have taken shelter. This great sage is
reputed to have resided near Sangrampur, and the village is believed to be
indebted for its name (which means the city of the battle) to the famous fight
between Rama and his two sons, Lava and Kusha ... it seems probable that
Champaran was occupied at an early period by races of Aryan descent, and formed
part of the country in which the Videhas settled … and founded a great and
powerful kingdom. This kingdom was in course of time ruled over by king Janaka .... under his rule
according to Hindu mythology, the
These details perhaps recall that in response to Ananda's plea not to die in this ‘little wattle-and-daub town’ of Kusinara, the Buddha replied that ‘long ago’ - also a reference to Vedic times - Kusinara had once been a great royal city called Kushavati. 80. The Champaran area is noted for having what are believed to be the only Vedic remains ever discovered in India (thought to be royal tombs) at the site of Lauriya Nandangarh, where an Asokan pillar also stands. Here several great burial mounds were found, in one of which was discovered an iron coffin containing ‘unusually long’ bones, presumably of some ancient warrior-king. 81. I believe that this was the region into which the young Gautama had earlier disappeared, seeking wisdom from its forest rishis, and that it was also the area towards which he later struggled, despite sickness and pain, as his deliberately-chosen place to die. There is compelling evidence to show that this event - the parinibbana, or passing-away of the Buddha - occurred at the Champaran site of Rampurva, near the present Indo-Nepalese border. 82
Both pilgrims agree with the Mahaparinibbana Sutta in stating that the Buddha died on the bank of the river Hiranyavati (or Ajitavati) between two sal trees, Yuan-chuang adding that Asoka had commemorated the spot with a stone pillar. 83. This pillar Yuan-chuang locates four li - about a kilometre - northwest of what still remained of the town of Kusinara at the time of his visit. Another stone pillar was located to the north of the town, and marked the place of the Buddha's cremation; this pillar he places ‘300 paces’ from the river's edge. 84. He also mentions a ‘yellowish-black’ soil at the site, which he believed might contain relics. 85
The Asokan site of Rampurva still awaits
proper excavation, most of it having disappeared beneath the alluvial deposits
left by successive inundations from a nearby large river. 86. This river I take to be the one mentioned by the
Chinese pilgrims. When they were discovered in 1877, the two Asokan pillars at
this site were situated 300 yards apart (precisely as indicated by Yuan-chuang
for those pillars seen at Kusinara) and were also placed in similar bearings to
those given by this pilgrim, one being situated slightly to the west of the
other. 87.
The pilgrims mention only two sites at which two Asokan pillars were found -
those of Sravasti and Kusinara - and Rampurva is the only site in India where there are two Asokan pillars to be seen
(there are none, I should add, at Kasia). The so-called ‘Southern Pillar’ at the Rampurva site I therefore
take to mark the place of the parinibbana, whilst the ‘Northern Pillar’
marked the Buddha's cremation-spot. At the time of its discovery, the former
pillar was situated, between two mounds; these I take to mark the locations of
the two sal trees. 88.
The material which covered these mounds was a yellowish kankar, or lime,
not known in this vicinity (it was also found in the Lauriya Nandangarh mounds
mentioned above); this I take to be the curious ‘yellowish-black soil’
mentioned by Yuan-chuang at the Kusinara site. 89. Sir John Marshall declared that
the ‘Southern Pillar’ at Rampurva (on which no inscription has been found)
‘appears to have been wilfully mutilated, perhaps with the purpose of
destroying some inscription on it’. Should Marshall’s observation be
correct, then I shall assume that this deed was perpetrated by later enemies of
Buddhism who believed, as Yuan-chuang’s guides evidently did, that it mentioned
the details of the Buddha’s final passing at this spot. 90.
Finally, I note that Fa-hsien gives 12 yojanas
- about 84 miles - as the distance between Kusinara and a stone pillar near
Vaishali. If this refers to the famous Asokan lion-pillar near this place (and
no other pillar has been found near there) 91 then this distance matches that
between Rampurva and Vaishali, the corresponding distance from Vaishali to the
Kasia site (60- 65 miles) being much too short. V. A. Smith noted that
Yuan-chuang ‘expressly states that Vaishali lay on the road from Pataliputra to
Nepal. Basar (Vaishali) lies on the ancient royal road from the capital
(Pataliputra) to Nepal, marked by three of Asoka’s pillars, which passed
Kesariya, Lauriya Araraj, Betiya, Lauriya-Nandangarh, Chankigarh, and Rampurva,
entering the hills by the Bhikna Thori Pass’ 92 (and thereby traversing the
ancient Mithila kingdom also, of which this portion of the Tarai once formed
part). This ‘ancient royal road’ is quite clearly marked, with a double broken
dotted line, on the 1" to 1 mile Survey of India maps. It was, I believe,
the ancient via regis that was trodden by the
Buddha to Kusinara (Rampurva), the same route being followed thereafter by
Asoka, and later, by the Chinese pilgrims themselves.
© 2007, T. A . Phelps. All rights and permissions reserved.
Any comments on this paper would be most
welcome. Please direct them to: taphelken@hotmail.com
1.
H. Luders, ‘On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Museum’, Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society (UK) 1912, fn., p. 167. Fuhrer was then Assistant Editor
(to Burgess) on the Epigraphia Indica. See ref. 4 also.
2. Proceedings of the Government of the North-Western
Provinces and Oudh, Public Works Department, B. & R. Branch,
‘Miscellaneous’, Aug. 1899, Proceeding no. 100 (India Office Library, London).
3. A. A. Fuhrer, ‘The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur’
(1889), Archaeological Survey of India Reports (New Imperial Series) Vol. 11,
p. 69.
4. See ref. 1, pp. 161-8. Luders neglects to mention that Fuhrer had
supplied Buhler with the details of these and other inscriptions – almost 400
in all – for Buhler’s assessment in the Epigraphia Indica, and epigraphists
will now have the unenviable task of establishing the authenticity of these
items. Immediately following Fuhrer’s exposure in 1898, Buhler drowned in Lake
Constance in mysterious circumstances, and since he had enthusiastically
endorsed all of Fuhrer’s supposed discoveries, one cannot help but wonder
whether this tragedy was accidental.
5. See ref. 1 (Luders) pp. 176-79, and ‘Catalogue of
Archaeological Exhibits in the United
6. ‘The Pioneer’,
7. Annual Progress Reports, Archaeological Survey, N.
-W. P. and Oudh Circle, Epigraphical Section, y/e 1895 and 1897. It would appear from these accounts that
Singh had redirected Fuhrer to Nigliva (where Singh owned some villages) at
this time. But if so, then why did Singh revise his original - and quite
specific – report so drastically? The first notification of Singh’s alleged
find was by Fuhrer (see ref. 6, ‘The Pioneer’, 1893). According to this report,
Singh had discovered an Asokan ‘lion-pillar’ near Bairat, a village 21 miles
inside Nepal, which was supposed to bear all of of the seven known Asokan
pillar inscriptions, as well as two new ones in a new script. Fuhrer even gave
details of the contents of these two
exciting new inscriptions, which were supposedly ‘addressed to the Buddhist
clergy of the Visas, the early predecessors of the Bais of Nepal’. All this
was, of course, complete nonsense, and the subsequent pillar at Nigliva bore
not the slightest resemblance to this ‘lion-pillar’ with its nine Asokan
inscriptions (which has never been found, I need hardly add). But why didn’t
Singh himself promptly protest the untruthfulness of this report when it
appeared in the ‘Pioneer’? Since this newspaper was noted for its links to
intelligence, and Singh was a relative of the Maharajah of Balrampur (a
powerful zamindari family which had
aided the British during the Mutiny) one wonders whether this item was perhaps
some sort of plant, designed to further imperial ‘forward’ interests in Nepal.
Whatever the event, this phony discovery paved the way for all the other
alleged Asokan discoveries in the Nepalese Tarai (‘Rummindei’ included) but an
increasingly paranoid Nepalese Government eventually closed the lid on these
archaeological intrusions into its territory, and the border became firmly
closed to all such ‘surveys’ shortly thereafter (cf. Smith’s fulminations on
the matter in the JRAS (UK) 1897, pp. 619-21).
8. Ibid, y/e 1895, p. 1. See also ‘Notes and News’, pp.
691-2, JRAS (UK) 1895.
9. ‘A Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni’s Birthplace’, by
A. A. Fuhrer (1897) Arch. Surv. of
10. See ref. 6, Smith’s ‘Prefatory Note’ to Mukherji’s
report, fn., p. 4.
11. See ref. 2, Aug. 1899, Proceedings nos. 90-91, pp.
29-33 (India Office Library, London). The same details are also disclosed in
the Government of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of Revenue &
Agriculture, Archaeology & Epigraphy, April 1899, File no. 6 ; see
‘Enclosure 1’ (Report) of letter no. 53A, and also letter no. 41A in this file.
(National Archives of
12. See ref. 9 (Fuhrer, Monograph
) pp. 33-4.
13. See ref. 7, y/e 1896, p. 2.
14. ‘The Birthplace of Gautama Buddha’, by V. A. Smith,
JRAS (UK) 1897, fn., p. 617.
15. ‘The Rummindei Inscription’, by V. A. Smith, Indian
Antiquary, Vol. 34 (1905) p. 1.
16. ‘The Life of Buddha’, by E. J. Thomas (1927) fn., p.
18.
17. See ref. 6, pp. 4, 43, and Plate 1. See also V. A.
Smith, Annual Progress Report, Archaeological Survey Circle, N. -W. P. &
Oudh, y/e 1899, p. 8.
18. ‘Nepal’, by Perceval Landon (1928) Vol. 2, p. 76.
19. ‘Nepal under the Ranas’, by Adrian Sever (1993) p.
469. See also ‘Princess’, by Vijayaraje Scindia (1985) pp. 5-8.
20. See ref. 2, Aug. 1899, proc. no. 12 (p. 5).
21. ‘Kapilavastu in the Buddhist Books’, by Thomas
Watters, JRAS (UK) 1898, p. 563.
22. ‘On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India’, by Thomas
Watters, Vol. 2 (1905) p. 17.
23. ‘She-Kia-Fang-Che’, trans. by P. C. Bagchi
(Calcutta, 1959) p. 69. A Sinologist, who has consulted a recent Chinese
variorum of the Fang-chih, assures me that Bagchi’s translation, whilst ‘not
very good’, is nevertheless correct upon this most important point.
24. See ref. 14 (Smith) p. 619.
25. See ref. 21 (Watters) p. 547.
26. See ref. 6 (Smith’s ‘Prefatory Note’) p. 17.
27. In the Preface to Watters’
book, Rhys Davids writes that ‘We have thought it best to leave Mr Watters’s
Ms. untouched, and to print the work as it stands’. This statement was a
demonstrable lie. Rhys Davids was evidently unaware that Watters had already
published a considerable portion of this work in an earlier series of articles
entitled ‘the Shadow of a Pilgrim’ (there are online extracts from these) in
‘The China Review’, Vols. 18-20 (1890-92). A comparison of the text of these
articles with that of the book discloses that these posthumous editors of
Watters had, in fact, substantially tampered with his original text, omitting
entire paragraphs and radically rearranging others. Unfortunately, these ‘China Review’ articles
stop just short of Yuan-chuang’s account of his visit to the Kapilavastu area,
so we will never know (unless his original manuscript is found) just exactly
what Watters did write in this
subsequent section of his work. My
enquiries have been both wide and extensive as to the whereabouts of this
missing manuscript, but alas, have drawn a perfect blank.
28. A. A. Fuhrer, Annual Progress Report, Archaeological
Survey, N. -W. P. & Oudh Circle. y/e 1898, p. 2. See also ref. 6 (Smith’s 'Prefatory Note' to Mukherji's report) p.
4, and also ref. 17 (Smith, Ann. Prog. Rep. 1899) pp. 1-2.
29. Government of India Proceedings (Part B), Department
of Revenue & Agriculture (Archaeology & Epigraphy section), Aug. 1898, File
no. 24 of 1898, Proceedings nos. 7-10. (National Archives of
30. Ibid. See also ref. 6 (Smith’s
‘Prefatory Note’ to Mukherji’s report) p. 4.
31. See ref. 7, y/e 1897, p. 3; and ref. 9 (Fuhrer, Monograph ) Chapter 5, concluding paragraph.
32. ‘Lumbini’, by T. W. Rhys Davids, ‘Encyclopaedia of
Religion & Ethics’, Vol. 8, p. 196.
33. ‘Development of Buddhism in Uttar Pradesh’, by N.
Dutt and K. D. Bajpai, (Lucknow, 1956) p. 330.
34. ‘Asokan Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence (2)’,
by John Irwin,
35. ‘The Birthplace of Gautama Buddha’, by V. A. Smith,
JRAS (UK) 1897, p. 618.
36. See ref. 9, pp. 27-8, and Fuhrer’s Annual Progress
Report, Archaeological Survey, N. -W. P. and Oudh Circle, Epigraphical Section,
y/e 1897, pp. 3-4. This is not, of course, the 12 th
century Tapu Malla inscription near the top of the pillar, nor the Tibetan ‘
37. See entry ‘Sakyamuni (= Saka-muni)’ in H. Luders, ‘A
List of Brahmi Inscriptions from the Earliest Times to About 400 A.D. with the
Exception of Those of Asoka’: Epigraphia Indica 10, p. 197. The only other
early inscriptions containing the form ‘Sakyamuni’ appear to be those of the
Kurram Casket (‘Sakyamunisa’) and the Wardak Vase (‘Sakyamune’). Both of these
inscriptions have been dated to the 1st-2nd century A. D., were written in the
Kharoshthi script, and were found in Afghanistan. The term ‘silavigadabhi’
which occurs in this pillar inscription also appears to have baffled all
attempts at translation thus far. Fuhrer himself stated that ‘Vigadabhi
is equivalent to the Sanskrit vigardabhi “not so
uncouth as an ass,” i.e., a horse; it is a compound adjective, qualifying sila’
(ref. 9, p. 34). However, since no Sanskritist that I have approached has ever
even heard of ‘vigardabhi’ (let alone agree that it could remotely be
translated as “not so uncouth as an ass”) I can only surmise that Fuhrer
perhaps intended this absurd ‘translation’ as some sort of bizarre private gibe
towards his detractors at this time.
38. J. F. Fleet, ‘Inscriptions’, Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Vol. 14, 11th edn. (1911) p. 622.
39. ‘Indian Epigraphy’, by Richard Salomon (1998) p.
242.
40. See article (in Nepali) by Tara Nanda Mitra,
published in the Saturday supplement to the ‘Gorkhapatra’ newspaper, Kathmandu,
27 Baisakh, 2043 (1986) and ‘Evolution of Buddhism and Archaeological
Excavations in Lumbini’, by Tara Nanda Mishra, in ‘Ancient Nepal’, no. 155,
June 2004.
41. See ref. 6 (Mukherji) pp. 35-6 and Plates 21 &
22. The former ‘modern,
mean construction’ (Fuhrer, 1897) has recently been removed from the face of
the earth, and has been replaced by a larger (and even more modern)
construction.
42.
‘Buddhist Monuments’, by Debala Mitra (Calcutta, 1971) p. 251.
43. See ref. 6 (Mukherji) p. 36 and Plates 24, 24a, and
26.
44. ‘Nepal’, by Perceval Landon, Vol. 1, pp. 9-10.
45. V. A. Smith, ‘The Piprahwa Stupa’, JRAS (UK) 1898,
p. 868. See also Mahabodhi Society Journal (Calcutta) May 1900, pp. 2-3.
46. Govt. of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of
Revenue & Agriculture, (Archaeology & Epigraphy section), Aug. 1898,
Proceedings no. 15, File no. 30 of 1898, p. 2. (National
Archives of
47. See ref. 29. In a letter to U Ma dated
48. See ref. 28 (all refs. quoted).
49. W. C. Peppe', ‘The Piprahwa Stupa, containing relics
of Buddha’, JRAS (
50. Ibid, p. 574. The caskets (including the inscribed
item) are now in the custody of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, the Siamese having
also been granted pieces of a ‘decayed sandalwood casket’ found within the
stupa. No drawing or photograph was ever made of the missing broken (summit)
casket however, the earliest of the supposed finds. It is absent from the
51. ‘Buddhism in
52. ‘Political and Secret’, Home Correspondence, 1898
(India Office Library, London). The official correspondence immediately
following this discovery (see ref. 46) draws attention to the political
advantages to be gained from awarding the relics to surrounding Buddhist
countries, and also makes various pointed references to the presence in India
at this time of a Siamese crown prince, Jinavarmavansa (a cousin to the King)
who soon showed a keen interest in acquiring the bone relics for Siam.
53. See ‘Discovery of Kapilavastu’, by K. M. Srivastava
(1986), ‘Buddha's Relics from Kapilavastu’ (same author) 1986, and ‘Excavations
at Piprahwa and Ganwaria’ (1996). He also claimed to have discovered (precisely
as Debala Mitra had earlier predicted) clay inscriptions bearing the word
‘Kapilavastu’, in monastic remains adjacent to the stupa. Alarmed by these
claims however, that doyen of Buddhist archaeologists, Herbert Härtel, declared
sharply at the EASAA Conference in Rome (1997) that ‘it is high time to set a
token of ‘scientific correctness’ in this extremely important matter’, but his
call for action went unheeded, authorities worldwide preferring to maintain a
deafening silence instead (see Herbert Härtel, ‘On the Dating of the Piprahwa
Vases’, in ‘South Asian Archaeology 1997’, pub.
54. ‘Sravasti’, by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1900, pp. 6-7.
55. ‘Kausambi and Sravasti’, by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK)
1898, pp. 520-31.
56. ‘The Site of Sravasti’, by J. Ph. Vogel, JRAS (UK)
1908, pp. 971-5, and ‘Archaeological Exploration in India, 1907-8’, by J. H.
Marshall, JRAS (UK) 1908, pp. 1098-1104.
57. ‘Archaeological Research on Ancient Buddhist Sites’,
by Herbert Härtel, in ‘The Dating of the Historical Buddha’ (Pt.1) p. 62, (ed.
Heinz Bechert, 1991).
58. ‘A Weaver Named Kabir’, by Charlotte Vaudeville
(1993) pp. 56 and 61-2.
59. Gregory Schopen, ‘Burial ‘Ad Sanctos’ and the
Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism’: Religion, Vol. 17,
pp. 193-225 (1987). The issue of the Buddha’s ‘parinirvanic presence’ in
stupas, images, relics, places, etc., is also examined in ‘Embodying the
Dharma’, ed. by K. Trainor and D. Germano (New York, 2004) and ‘Relics of the
Buddha’, by John S. Strong (Princeton University Press, 2004). See also ref. 77
(below).
60. ‘Report of Tours in Gorakhpur, Saran, and Ghazipur
in 1878-80’, by A. C. L. Carlleyle, Archaeological Survey of India Reports (Old
Series) Vol. 22, p. 72, (1885). See also ref. 58 (Vaudeville) p. 61-2.
61. See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 1.,
and ‘Travels of Fa-Hsien’, by H. A. Giles, p. 36 (1926). Yuan-chuang noted the
remains of around 1000 ruined monasteries and ten ruined cities in the
Kapilavastu region. Whilst such features appear to be absent from the areas
around the present nominations for the site of Kapilavastu, Carlleyle noted
that the remains at Tameshwar, near to Maghar, appeared to be those of ‘an
ancient city of considerable size and importance... (with)
many Buddhist viharas and monasteries’. Similar nearby sites were also noted by
Carlleyle at the time of his visits in the 1870s - Koron-dih, Mahasthan,
Bakhira-dih, etc. All still await excavation.
62. See ref. 58, pp. 61-79.
63. ‘The History, Antiquities, Topography, and
Statistics of Eastern India’, (usually referred to as ‘Eastern India’) by
Francis Buchanan-Hamilton (ed. R. M. Martin) Vol. 2, p. 393 (1838).
64. ‘Kabir and the Bhagti Movement’, by Mohan Singh, p.
78 (Lahore, 1934).
65. ‘A Manual of Budhism’, by R. Spence Hardy (1853) p.
144; and ‘The Life or Legend of Gaudama’, by P. Bigandet, vol. 1, p. 12. The
present Lumbini site lies 27 kms. west
of this river border. This would thus have located it deep inside any former
Kapilavastu territory, and its position cannot be reconciled with this
important detail in consequence.
66. ‘Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions of the
North-Western Provinces’, by A. A. Fuhrer (1891) p. 242. See also Proceedings
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Part 1) p. 56 (1884), and Minutes of the
Managing Committee (North-Western Provinces and Oudh Provincial Museum) Vol. 1,
1885-6, Appendix A (p. 107). Since Lucknow Museum has informed me that neither
this casket nor its associated items can now be traced, no date for this
deposit is presently available (though since coins were also found, this may
suggest a Kushan provenance). For fairly detailed (earlier) topographical
accounts of the site, see ref. 63 (Buchanan-Hamilton) pp. 352-3, and ref. 60
(Carlleyle) pp. 64-7. Buchanan-Hamilton referred to the presence of ‘many small
detached heaps’ at the site during his visit in the early 1800s : were these
votive stupas, one wonders? He also mentions two ancient shrines of Mohammedan
holy men at Domingarh. Doubtless these were Sufi pirs, remarkably
eclectic in their spiritual outlook, whose cult ‘often developed by taking over
an old Buddhistical site’ according to Prof. Vaudeville (as Kabir did at
Maghar). Though the decline of Buddhism in India often saw the conversion of
remaining Indian Buddhists to Islam, this was done largely for pragmatic social
reasons, and Buddhist sites and beliefs were by no means promptly abandoned by
such conversion.
67. ‘Archaeological Geography of the Ganga
Plain’, by Dilip Chakrabarti (2001) p. 219. Chakrabarti states that this
information was a ‘personal communication’ from Krishnanand Tripathi, at
Gorakhpur University’s Department of Ancient History. Following a telephone
call however, Tripathi carefully evaded answering my questions on these finds
(as did his Department) and instead proposed that I contact Prof. P. N. Singh
at Banaras Hindu University. Both Singh
and his colleagues have proved equally unforthcoming on the matter, and have
flatly refused to respond to any of my emails.
A road has recently been driven clean through the Domingarh site, though
the place obviously warrants prompt, careful, and extensive excavation. An old
bed of the Rohini formerly ran to the east
of the mound (cf. Yuan-chuang’s ‘little river of oil’) and if my conclusion
that Domingarh was Lumbini is correct, then any buried Asokan pillar remains
should be sought in this area.
68.
See ref. 63 (Buchanan-Hamilton) vol. 2, pp. 352-3: ‘It is called the Domingarh, or the castle of the Domlady’.
69.
See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 20, and ref. 61 (Giles) p. 39.
70.
Hirananda Sastri, Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India (Northern
Circle) 1910-11, p. 69. Sastri mentions ‘the very heavy square bricks of the
Mauryan type of which it is mostly built’. Cf. the oldest bricks, ‘very large
and thick, and of a square shape’, found at the Domingarh site mentioned above,
and similar bricks found at Rampurva (see below, ‘Kusinara’) which Daya Ram
Sahni identified as ‘the remnants of an extensive floor laid in Asoka’s time’
(‘Excavations at Rampurva’, ASI Director-General’s Report, 1907-08, p. 183).
71.
The Ramabhar Tal (lake) : see A. Cunningham,
Archaeological Survey of